[Y-Indology] samkara tradition and temple worship

[Guest guest]

Merely the evidence of a Chinese traveler (was he in India long

enough to visit 1000 monasteries and do a survey of their

population?) cannot be taken as evidence for the dominance of

Satyasiddhi views in India. For all one knows he might be

deliberately concocted such views as he was partial to Satyasiddhi

philosophy and wanted to promote it in China – it is to be noted that

Zen in its philosophy bears closer resemblance to Atmavaada than

nairaatmaya. As DT Suzuki notes the Chinese didn't take positively to

the nairaatmaya and propped up a "Buddha nature" as a substitute for

the Self/Atman. (One question to be asked here is how popular are

Satyasiddhi views in other Buddhist countries – Japan or Tibet for

instance?).

 

If we were to base our conclusions on Buddhist literature itself,

Satyasiddhi was obviously a minority view – most Buddhist were

staunch nairaatmayavaadins.

 

Also to note that not many Buddhist works show any particular concern

to Satyasiddhi views. Yes, Vaasubandu has devoted an entire chapter

in his voluminous Abhidharmakosham to counter Satyasiddhi views. But

apart from this I'm not aware of other Buddhist philosophers delving

deep into this issue. Naagaarjuna doesn't pay specific attention to

such views – he seems to be concerned mainly with the

Sarvaastivaadins and the Atmavaadins. If anything the Satyasiddhi

view of skandha + pudgala, is summarily dismissed as illogical in

the "both" clause of the chatushkoti. The classic "light and darkness

cannot exist together" which is used to counter the Jainaas would

apply to Satyasiddhi as well. As is well known the "both"

and "neither" views hardly enjoy as much attention as the "is" or "is

not" in Maadhyamika dialectic.

 

Also whatever concern against Satyasiddhi views, Vaasubandu had as a

Sarvaastivaadin, he seems to have lost it in his Yogaacaaric avatar,

where he is mainly interested in combating Sarvaastivaada and

Maadhyamika views.

[Guest guest]

Quoting vpcnk <vpcnk:

 

> Merely the evidence of a Chinese traveler (was he in India long

> enough to visit 1000 monasteries and do a survey of their

> population?) cannot be taken as evidence for the dominance of

> Satyasiddhi views in India. For all one knows he might be

> deliberately concocted such views as he was partial to Satyasiddhi

> philosophy and wanted to promote it in China

 

It certainly can be taken as evidence, even if nothing can be taken as proof.

I think it's fair to feel that it would be more farfetched to dismiss Xuanzang

as a liar or a psychotic.

 

 

>

> If we were to base our conclusions on Buddhist literature itself,

> Satyasiddhi was obviously a minority view – most Buddhist were

> staunch nairaatmayavaadins.

 

If we are to trust Buddhist schools' account of themselves and one another, why

not trust the Buddhist Xuanzang?

 

 

 

If anything the Satyasiddhi

> view of skandha + pudgala, is summarily dismissed as illogical in

> the "both" clause of the chatushkoti. The classic "light and darkness

> cannot exist together" which is used to counter the Jainaas would

> apply to Satyasiddhi as well.

 

Yes, so Nagarjuna may well have had the Pudgalavadins in mind as well. He does

not, after all, name names (so to speak) in the Mulamadhyamakakarika and most

of his works.

 

 

> Also whatever concern against Satyasiddhi views, Vaasubandu had as a

> Sarvaastivaadin, he seems to have lost it in his Yogaacaaric avatar,

> where he is mainly interested in combating Sarvaastivaada and

> Maadhyamika views.

 

This makes sense. Yogacara has a lot of problems with Madhyamaka and

Sarvastivada, but the Pudgalavada would really not have been worth the effort

outside of the comprehensive Abhidharmakosa.

 

P